Three places are handed down in the text, where the Sun and Moon stood still. The first, Gabaon (verse 12), concerning which [see] above, question 1. But this seems to be read very variously. The Latin says: “Sun, against Gabaon move not.” The Greek: στῆθι ὁ ἥλιος κατὰ Γαβαών (“Stand, O Sun, over against Gabaon”). The Hebrew: “Sun, in Gabaon rest.” Some, indeed, have interpreted the Latin [to mean] that the Sun should not move to the disadvantage of besieged Gabaon; but neither do the other texts bear this, nor [does] what is added concerning the Moon (“against Aijalon,” which was not besieged, that it should not move), as Abulensis observes (question 17). Some [interpret it] that [the Sun] should [not] move toward Gabaon from the eastern horizon — but I shall say afterward that the Sun was then not in the eastern quadrant. Others [interpret]: “set not upon us while we fight in Gabaon” — but the Israelites had already advanced beyond Gabaon toward Azeca, while they pursued the fleeing Chananaeans there. Abulensis, however (questions 15 & 16): “O Sun, which standest in Gabaon, move not.” Arias [Montano] nearly agrees, saying that the Sun then seemed to overhang the city of Gabaon; and so the Greek κατά is here taken for “in,” as also below, verse 13: κατὰ μέσον τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, that is, “in the midst of heaven.” But the Latin, on the contrary, means “over against” [è regione]: because, just as Joshua was leaving Gabaon behind his back, pursuing the enemy toward the west, so also he had the Sun behind him — as if it either hung straight over Gabaon, and was, from the higher place, as it were opposite to him, or was very near to the city, placed as it were between Joshua himself and that city; and so, again, in a manner, it could be said [to be] “over against the region of Gabaon” — overhanging, indeed, the Gabaonite territory, but, by a straight line, distant from the city itself. For things that so appear are commonly said to be “set over against.” And so both [statements] are true: that the Sun was in Gabaon, and over against Gabaon.
The second place is the valley of Aijalon, where the Moon is said to be — in the Seventy it is called “the valley of Aijalon” [αἰλών]; in Isaiah, chapter 28, verse 21, “the valley of Gabaon”; in [the tribe of] Benjamin’s Itinerary, “the valley of the Moon.” Eusebius thus describes it in the book On Places: “Aijalon, a valley, and a steep [height], above which, when Jesus [Joshua] once prayed, the Moon stood still — near the village, which until now is called Aijalon, toward the east of Bethel, distant three miles from it, not far
from Gabaa and Rama, cities of Saul.” But almost all say that Eusebius slipped here. First: because Aijalon was farther from Saul’s Gabaa — for this Gabaa is in the territory of the Benjamites, [but] Aijalon [is] in the tribe of the Danites. Secondly: instead of “Bethel,” Ziegler and Masius correct [it to] “Shiloh.” Thirdly: [the tribe of] Benjamin counts from this valley of Aijalon up to Gabaon one league. Fourthly: St. Jerome, correcting Eusebius in the cited place: “Moreover,” he says, “the Hebrews affirm that Aijalon is a village near Nicopolis, at the second milestone for those going to Aelia [Jerusalem].” And indeed the same St. Jerome, in the Epitaph of Paula, signifies also that between Nicopolis (which, in question 10, I called Emmaus) and Jerusalem are Gabaon and Aijalon — that is, more to the east than Nicopolis, nay even than Gabaon, as is established from this, that St. Jerome says it [Aijalon] is distant two stones — that is, two miles, or 16 stadia — from Emmaus, toward Jerusalem. But Emmaus was distant from Jerusalem 60 stadia (Luke 24, verse 13). Therefore Aijalon [is] at 44 stadia [from Jerusalem], while Gabaon is distant from the same [Jerusalem] 50 stadia, as was said above (chapter 9, question 1); and therefore I cannot assent to Adrichomius, who makes Aijalon much more to the west than Emmaus and Gabaon. Yet all hand down that Aijalon is more to the south than both Gabaon and Emmaus. As for the Moon, it is right to understand that it was not moved over against it [Aijalon], or that it stood still in it, in the same way as was said of the Sun above — whether the context meant poetically to signify the same place, as Masius judges, or not; which will be examined afterward.
The third place [is] at verse 13: “the midst of heaven” [medium caeli]. Abulensis (question 12) says that there is a twofold “middle” of a thing: one according to equidistance, the other according to interposition. And [he says] that “middle” is here taken in this latter mode — just as above, [chapter 7,] verse 13: “The anathema is in the midst of thee”; and Isaiah 6, verse 5: “I dwell in the midst of a people having polluted lips.” But surely “middle” is here taken in the former mode. For, first, by “interposition” everything is called “middle” [by him] which is between the extreme limits — as any part of a line between its extreme points, and so any part of the hemisphere between the extreme points of rising and setting which touch the horizon, is called “middle.” But surely this is not the “middle of heaven,” but the “middle of the hemisphere.” Then, here is a word [in the Hebrew] which properly signifies “middle” by the equality of the intervals of the parts — namely chetsi [חצי, “half”]; whereas above, in chapter 7, it is be-kerbecha [בקרבך, “in thy midst”]; in Isaiah 6, betoch [בתוך, “in the midst”]. Thirdly: it would have sufficed to say “the Sun stood still,” because, since it had been said before “let it not move against Gabaon,” or “let it stand still in Gabaon,” it would have been sufficiently understood that it stood still there, and not in the little portions touching the horizon. But the text meant to signify something more: that the Sun not only stood still in Gabaon, but had also there reached the summit of the middle of heaven [the meridian], and in it — as Sedulius says (book 1) — stood fixed. Now it must be known that “the middle of heaven, which is the middle by equidistance,” is taken in three ways. First: from any point to any other set diametrically [opposite]. Secondly: from a conspicuous point to another, likewise as it were conspicuous…
(col. 1019)
And so there are points of the Sun — both of rising and of setting — on the horizon, which divide the hemisphere of heaven set above the horizon from that which is below. Thirdly: the point which is the “middle” in the conspicuous hemisphere — namely, when the Sun reaches the meridian circle. For this the sphere-scholars [astronomers] call τὸ μεσουράνημα (to mesouranēma, “the mid-heaven”) — either because it is the middle of the whole heaven (if it be referred to the point diametrically opposite, according to the first notion), or because it is the middle of the conspicuous heaven; and so it is commonly taken. But all [these] are taken either strictly and geometrically, so that it be a true precise diameter and a truly precise middle, as the words themselves import; or a little more broadly and commonly, so that that too be called “middle” which is not far from the middle. For things which differ little seem to differ nothing — as was said at chapter 6, question 30, concerning midday.
And it is sufficiently clear. First, that “the middle of heaven” is here not taken in that first of the three modes, because in whatever part and position of heaven the Sun be, it is thus always “in the middle of heaven,” even if it is at the Antipodes, in the hidden hemisphere. Nor is it taken in the second mode, because the points or times of rising and setting are wont to be marked by their proper names — mizrach [מזרח, “east”] and erev [ערב, “west / evening”], or “ascent” and “descent.” Therefore in the third mode the Sun stood still “in the middle of heaven” — taking it strictly or broadly, as shall please [us] from the following question, which will also produce not-to-be-rejected authors of this exposition. But some Talmudic Rabbis add (in the tractate Avodah Zarah, chapter 2, and in the Pirke de R. Eliezer) a fourth place where the Sun stood still — namely, the line of setting — because Scripture is [worded]: “the Sun hastened not to set.” But this came about because it rested midway in mid-heaven, and did not proceed to its setting with the wonted velocity.